Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(36,427 posts)
9. It would be useful, if one were to actually believe this nonsense, to look at the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory data.
Mon Aug 18, 2025, 06:45 AM
Aug 18

I do that. Every week.



Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory.

We began squandering trillion dollar sums of money on the useless, mass and land intensive, so called "renewable energy" scheme in the 21st century, and the amount of money being so squandered is increasing, particularly because this junk has a short life time.

Similarly the rate at which the accumulation of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide is also increasing. I modeled, here, in this space, a crude quadratic function to represent the roughly parabolic axis on which the sinusoidal annual function is imposed.

I did so here in 2022:

A Commentary on Failure, Delusion and Faith: Danish Data on Big Wind Turbines and Their Lifetimes.

As of this writing, I have been a member of DU for 19 years and 240 days, which works out in decimal years to 19.658 years. This means the second derivative, the rate of change of the rate of change is 0.04 ppm/yr^2 for my tenure here. (A disturbing fact is that the second derivative for seven years of similar data running from April of 1993 to April of 2000 showed a second derivative of 0.03 ppm/yr^2; the third derivative is also positive, but I'll ignore that for now.) If these trends continue, this suggests that “by 2050,” 28 years from now, using the language that bourgeois assholes in organizations like Greenpeace use to suggest the outbreak of a “renewable energy” nirvana, the rate of change, the first derivative, will be on the order of 3.6 ppm/year. Using very simple calculus, integrating the observed second derivative twice, using the boundary conditions – the current data - to determine the integration constants, one obtains a quadratic equation (0.04)t^2+(2.45)t+ 419.71 = c where t is the number of years after 2022 and c is the concentration at the year in question.


I update the constants of integration weekly using the latest data. (I formulated the crude equation, using low level high school calculus, in 2022.) It predicts - and there has been no inflection in the data - that we will hit 500 ppm in 2046, and in 2050 we'll be at 520 ppm. Apologists for the reactionary, useless, and fossil fuel dependent so called "renewable energy" scheme couldn't care less.

The tremendously failed so called "renewable energy" scheme was never about climate change. Advocates of this worthless crap that has left the planet in flames have zero interest, except for lip service, in the ongoing and accelerating collapse of the planetary atmosphere. Their goal, as the OP demonstrates was always to attack the only scalable, safe, and carbon free source of energy available to humanity, nuclear energy. At this they have succeeded, at an unimaginable cost to the future of humanity and all living things.

The most dangerous lies are those we tell ourselves.

History will not forgive us, nor should it.

Have a pleasant week.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

imagine having all that time on your hands and choosing to do THAT Skittles Aug 17 #1
Reprehensible piece of crap ...hurting everyone with her stupidity and arrogance JT45242 Aug 17 #2
So called "renewable energy" has nothing to do with fighting greenhouse gases. NNadir Aug 17 #4
While I know this won't be happily received here, I applaud her efforts to protect wilderness from development. NNadir Aug 17 #3
Renewable energy is seeing massive growth that nuclear cannot hope to compete with. VMA131Marine Aug 17 #5
It would be useful, if one were to actually believe this nonsense, to look at the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory data. NNadir Aug 18 #9
Where is COVID in the Mauna Loa data? Finishline42 Aug 18 #10
Actually, I intended this post for another thread but... NNadir Aug 19 #14
let me guess, you want to say the data a Mauna Loa is wrong? Finishline42 Aug 20 #19
Don't worry. Be happy. I hear all the time that solar and wind will save us. By the way, my lights went on and... NNadir Aug 20 #20
How fast could we build nuclear power plants? VMA131Marine Aug 19 #15
It actually would require something called "numbers" to dispose of this absurd argument. NNadir Aug 19 #16
I notice you didn't answer my question! VMA131Marine Aug 19 #17
I interpret my response quite differently. I don't regard numbers as Gish Gallop, but I am well aware that... NNadir Aug 20 #18
We're not going to save the world by trashing it. hunter Aug 17 #6
you've done your own research Skittles Aug 17 #8
Well it is a little more complicated jfz9580m Aug 18 #11
NNadir's post on Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity is a good one. hunter Aug 18 #12
Can't live forever. rickyhall Aug 17 #7
Here's a direct link without the social media tracking: hunter Aug 19 #13
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»How One Woman Is Stalling...»Reply #9